The effects of lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily vs. ibuprofen 600 mg three times daily on the blood pressure profiles of hypertensive osteoarthritis patients taking different classes of antihypertensive agents.

AIMS: To examine whether the blood pressure (BP) profiles of lumiracoxib and high-dose ibuprofen differed in patients treated with different classes of antihypertensive medications. METHODS: A 4-week, multicentre, randomised, double-blind study has compared the effects of lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily (od) (n = 394) and ibuprofen 600 mg three times daily (tid) (n = 393) on ambulatory BP in osteoarthritis (OA) patients with controlled hypertension. Here, we present subgroup analyses for patients receiving different antihypertensive classes. The primary outcome was a comparison of the change in 24-h mean systolic ambulatory BP (MSABP) from baseline to week 4. Patients receiving angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) represented the largest subgroups receiving antihypertensive monotherapy. RESULTS: For patients receiving an ARB monotherapy, the least squares mean (LSM) 24-h MSABP at week 4 fell with lumiracoxib 100 mg od and increased with ibuprofen 600 mg tid, creating an estimated treatment difference of 8.1 mmHg in favour of lumiracoxib (p < 0.001). For patients receiving an ACEI and a beta-blocker monotherapy, the estimated treatment difference was 8.2 mmHg (p < 0.001) and 5.8 mmHg (p = 0.002) in favour of lumiracoxib respectively. These treatment differences were greater than observed in the overall population (5.0 mmHg in favour of lumiracoxib). In patients receiving diuretics or calcium channel blockers, treatment differences in MSABP were smaller and not statistically significant, although they remained in favour of lumiracoxib. CONCLUSION: Lumiracoxib 100 mg od resulted in less destabilisation of BP than high-dose ibuprofen 600 mg tid, and this effect was the greatest in subgroups treated with drugs blocking the renin-angiotensin system.

[Survival of tetraplegic spinal cord injured persons after the first admission of a rehabilitation center and prognosis factors: a multicenter study of 697 subjects in French centers]. / La survie des blessés médullaires tétraplégiques après la première entrée en centre de rééducation et ses facteurs pronostiques.

BACKGROUND: We surveyed survival and prognosis factors in tetraplegic spinal cord injured persons (TSCI) after their admission to a physical medicine and rehabilitation center. METHODS: This multicenter study included 697 individuals, the entire cohort of patients admitted to three of the principal French centers caring for spinal cord injured persons from 1949 to 1997. The data set was drawn from the medical files and included data on the accident and its complications, social and demographic features, and the characteristics of the spinal injury. Survival data were obtained for all subjects from the official registries of their place of birth. Univariate (Kaplan-Meier) and multivariate (Cox regression) analysis was made to study links between these data and survival. RESULTS: Univariate analysis indicated that the principal variables significantly related to survival were: level of the lesion, age at the time of the accident, the cause of the accident, and the presence of a permanent tracheotomy or a depressive syndrome requiring medical care. Multivariate analysis showed that the risk of dying was 82% lower for persons who did not have a permanent tracheotomy. The risk declined by 92%, 89% and 69% for TSCI aged 20 years or less, 20-39 years and 40-59 years respectively at the time of the accident compared with those aged more than 60 years. This risk was 37% lower for TSCI without depressive syndrome and 52% lower for persons injured at levels C6, C7, C8 compared with those injured at levels C2, C3, C4. CONCLUSION: Multivariate analysis showed that the principal prognosis factors for survival are the presence of a permanent tracheotomy, the age at the time of the accident, the presence of a depressive syndrome and the level of the lesion. No statistical improvement of survival was observed related with time (corresponding to the year of inclusion) but, over the study period, there was an increasing number of spinal cord injured person who survived with high lesions.